Pakistan India cricket matches are famous for their fervor and intensity of competition. From some estimates, the contest is one of the most popular sporting events in the world. As the world T20 2016 is going to see another crucial Pak-India encounter, it is important to see what the strategic options available to both teams are. In other words, can game theory permits insights as to the strategy that any team can adopt to outsmart its rival? This piece is an attempt in this direction.Of course in any game the outcome depends on a combination of skill and luck. To begin our strategic analysis, therefore, we define the skill set as one that contains batting, bowling, and fielding. The forth factor, luck, is of random nature.From the three skills that determine the outcome of the game, who has the advantage in what? Let’s take the batting skills first. This is any body’s judgment. Team India has a clear edge over Pakistan in this department. On the bowling side, the situation is reverse and Pakistan is enjoying slight advantage over India. In fielding, one can assume that the difference is insignificant.What are the strategic options? We can write a simple equation to represent the balance between the teams’ skills (while assuming that both teams have equal luck):(Pak Batting Skill + Batting Luck) < (India Batting Skill + Batting Luck)(Pak Bowling Skill + Bowling Luck) > (India Bowling Skill + Bowling Luck)The recent history of play between the two teams tell us that Pakistan’s batting has a skill deficit when put against Indian batting while Pakistan bowling has a skill surplus compared to Indian bowling. Thus, the winning strategy for Pakistan is to overcome the deficit and to maintain the surplus. However, it is not possible to change the skill surplus/ deficit over night.Consider the batting equation first. Is there a factor that can help Pakistan overcome batting skill deficit? Yes, this is luck. But we assume that luck is a random variable for both the teams. Is there a strategy to turn the random event in Pakistan’s favor? To see this let’s assume that luck follows a normal distribution. In other words, luck follows a bell shaped distribution which means that most likely values are those in the middle of the distribution and unlikely values lie towards the tails of the distribution. To overcome batting deficit, Pakistan needs a “lucky draw” from the luck distribution that is so abnormally positive as to overcome the deficit plus Indian luck (in the above equation). From the graph of the normal distribution, such a draw should come from the right (or positive) tail of the distribution.Is it possible to imagine a strategy that target the right tail of the luck distribution? In the normal distribution, values lying under the tails are less likely compared to values or events that fall in the middle of the distribution. In terms of strategy, it implies that Pakistan needs to play a risky or less probable strategy. But what could that be? A risky strategy for Pakistan’s batting is to open with Shahid Afridi and Ahmad Shahzad. These two batsmen should come with the only objective to post 80 plus runs in the power play. Given their past record, this is entirely possible. In fact, both South Africa and England did the same and ended up with magnificent totals in the end. The risk associated with this strategy is that Afridi, being Pakistan’s captain, may return to pavillion without having a good score. Loosing captain at the initial stage, means pressure for the subsequent batsmen. Thus to account for this possibility the batsman to come, in case Afridi got out before three overs of the game being completed, should be Wahab Riaz. He should be told to go and complete the Afridi’s task. In case, Ahmad Shahzad bowled before Afridi, the batting order should follow its normal sequence. Similarly, if the opening pair breaks after the power play overs then again batting order should follow its normal sequence. This is because in the former case, Afridi will be there to launch an attack. While in the later case, the opening pair had already achieve their objective, namely, to play out the power play and post a healthy total on the score board. The analysis is logical and follows the basic principles of strategic analysis. According to text book analysis of risk, events with lesser probability offer greater return. In other words, the greater the risk associated with Pakistan’s choices, the greater is the possible return and this would create the room for Pakistan to overcome its batting deficit.If Indian team knows that Pakistan is going to follow a risky strategy then how will they respond? The problem with India is that they are generally considered a better side of the two, both because of their strong batting, and their past record against Pakistan in international events. So a risky strategy would not be in their interest. Their best strategy would be to play their normal game, at least in batting. On bowling side, they can play risky to overcome their bowling deficit. For example, they can bring Ashwin to open the Indian bowling attack. In this case, if Indian strategy works, then Pakistan has to play its counter strategy i.e. sending of Wahab or some other hard hitter of the ball up the order. This has two advantages: Pakistan can score quickly while keeping their best batsmen intact for the last part of the play, while India would consume their best bowling option. On the other hand, if Pakistan plays safe, it would turn the game into a routing game with the greater likelihood of it being going in India’s favor.The outcome of this strategic analysis is clear: Pakistan has a chance to win the competition if Pakistan opts for a risky strategy in batting. This chance stems from the fact that greater risk offers greater return. In strategic competition, a disadvantageous player has to play differently from his opponent. Otherwise, the disadvantaged player will never able to cover the lead or deficit. While for the player who is enjoying an advantage, it would be better to do as good as the opponent as long as this maintains his skill surplus.